I swear, if we on the right were as good at fighting the Prozis as we are at fighting each other…

So, on one side of the ring, we have Sarah Hoyt whom we respect and admire greatly, and not just because she’s a fellow Euro-refugee, but even more so because she’s an absolutely fantastic writer (and author too!) and a nice, calm, yet ruthlessly strategic influence.

On the other, we have a bunch of equally talented, but more rowdy, sick and tired, angry and just ready to kick down thinkers. And ourself, because that’s where we mostly belong because by G-D we’re pissed off and we’re not going to take it anymore. That’s His Imperial Majesty’s camp, but he has a foot in the other as well.

Not because we can’t make our mind up, but because we know that sometimes we can all be right without agreeing on the particulars. But make no mistake, we’re not kidding when we say that “we’re done.” Maybe it’s just a matter of what we’re done with.

And now that we’ve confused everybody, what’s this infighting all about? Glad you asked. It started with this post of Sarah’s in which she took a well-deserved dump on Weepy Boner and the Quisling Party for their sellout on Princess Precious Obama’s Executive Amnesty. And then went on to state that maybe it wasn’t the end of the world. Big mistake.

Now, for the record, we believe very much that she was a bit on the optimistic side (you know about our predilection for British Understatements, don’t you? If not, or if you’re new, that was one) regarding what this all meant, but boy did it trigger a shitstorm from His Imperial Majesty’s camp. All of it accompanied by really good analysis as to exactly why it was, to apply British Understatement Technology again, quite a bit polly-annaish to find any sort of bright light at the end of the tunnel in that unqualified, unconditional Quisling Party surrender.

Now, if you’ve read all of that… You deserve a merit badge. But you really should, because it’s all good, from both sides.

Where Sarah is wrong is mainly in interpretation of what the “fight” over DHS funding and Executive Amnesty meant. Mainly that it was a fight at all. It wasn’t. It was a perfect example of the whorish profession that is unprincipled, traitor politics: You strike a deal, and then you arrange for just enough votes to make it pass and let the rest vote against to protect their reelection chances.

It didn’t tell us that “2/3 of the Republican Party held firm”, as Sarah says, it meant that Weepy Boner and his Prozi Pimps only needed one third of the Republicans to sell out to the enemy.

But, more importantly, what it does mean is that we currently have a Republican “leader” of the House who is so much in bed with the enemy that he’s willing to openly, unashamedly, unapologetically collaborate with the enemy to get the enemy’s wishes through against the will of the majority of his own damn fucking party!

We don’t know how you find hope in that, Sarah, because we sure as Hades can’t see any. He took one look at the Hastert Principle and threw it out the window so he could fellate and please his lord and master, Barrack Hussein Obama. As well as his corporate sugar daddies, of course, who couldn’t give less of a shit about the plight of American workers if they tried really, really hard. They just want cheap slave labor.

But even that, atrocious as it is, we can understand on a purely logical level. The corporate sugar daddies, that is. What we cannot, have not ever and will not ever accept, understand or excuse is a party “leader” taking a shit on the majority of the party he allegedly leads as well as all of their constituents who made it possible for him to lord it over the House.

And that, in a nutshell, is why us on the “fuck it, we’re done” roster are beyond caring about the long view and the party anymore.

She’s also wrong, by the way, but that’s merely a footnote here, about her complete dismissal of a third party as an option. The Republican Party used to be a third party. Just ask the Whigs. No, you can’t. They don’t exist anymore. And it didn’t take 60 years either. What she is most definitely right about is that it’s a long shot at this point and, given the infighting on our side, not at all an even remotely sure bet, so she has a point. A good one.

What she’s also right about is just how bloody costly and horrendous the consequences of a “let’s just screw it all and go for the guns” approach. And she should know, because she’s seen it in her native country.

She’s right. Absolutely, undeniably right.

But those of us who are about done with playing nice aren’t ignorant of that. Oh sure, there might very well be some in our camp who still have an overly romantic view of how such a throwdown would play out, and to those we can only say “go forth and educate thyselves, for thy brains are malnourished.”

We agree in every detail with Sarah just how undesirable such a situation would be and we pray daily that it never comes to that, there is nothing “glorious” in revolutions and everybody ends up dirty in the end, but you’ll never get the enemy’s attention if your first act is to announce loudly that you’ll never, ever contemplate such an action. You never ever get the enemy to fear you if your first act is to announce that you won’t ever use your most potent and scary weapon against him because that would be very bad.

That’s why Pax Americana started going to shit. When we told the world, indirectly at first but openly later, that whereas we surely have enough nukes to wipe out the entire planet 50 times over and then some, we’d never ever actually do such a thing. The gun in your hand isn’t all that scary to the rapist you’re pointing it at if you tell him that you’ll never pull the trigger.

So pointing out to the Prozi fascists that yes, we will go to the mattresses is not a Bad Thing™, nor is it “empty bravado” (unless we don’t really mean it), it’s Preparing the Battlefield™. It’s also the only honorable thing to do. At least historians can’t later say that they hadn’t been warned. But that’s a minor point.

Not to mention that we on the angry side are apparently the only ones left who really, sincerely want to kick the enemy in the nuts for once, rather than just “strategically straightening out the lines all the way back to Berlin”.

Passing a bill that will inevitably get vetoed, heck, even just VOTING YOUR G-DDDAMNED CONSCIENCE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE is not an “empty gesture.”

It’s called “fighting back”, and we sure as some place very hot and sulfurous haven’t seen that a lot from the “Republican” Party lately, have we? “Accepting the inevitability of the situation” is surely a strategy, it just has one “minor” failing: it’s not a winning one and, last we checked, the whole point of fighting a war is to win it. Unless we completely misunderstood everything they taught us at the academy.

When you’re in a war, and we are in a war for this nation’s future, if not indeed the future of the concept of liberty, you need to amass forces. Obviously you have your own forces already, we won’t waste time on that, but allies are nice too. Particularly when you’re outnumbered.

How do you encourage allies to join you (we’re talking about Low Information Voters here)? By refusing to announce that there’s a fight going on? By surrendering every time you’re facing a fight? By betraying and selling out your own, pre-existing forces every step of the way with not as much as a by your leave?

We’re reminded of our own very much not glorious military service (the Soviets packed up their tents and went home) here. The Soviet Union didn’t not turn the Cold War into a Hot one because we meekly accepted inevitability, nor were our sworn oaths to go down fighting no matter the outcome particularly “bright” in the “long view” (we’d all be dead, after all, and well we knew it). They didn’t because they knew that in the end we’d make them fucking well hurt. Sure, those of us manning the tripwire wouldn’t ever live to see the day, but they knew that we’d kick them in the nuts as hard as we could because we’d told them so.

We guess we should have just taken a NATO vote and decided that “hey, the Soviet Union can always veto our bill to keep them from crossing the border because they outnumber us, so let’s just cut a deal with the Politburo and plan for the future.” In about 75 years, because that’s how long it took adopting the Long View.

Sarah, you’re absolutely right saying that things could be a lot worse and that people who think that a bloody revolution would be a quick, if unpleasant affair need to grow up in a hurry, but you also need to understand that we can’t even begin to fight this enemy, if we spend all of our time looking for silver linings and touching our forelocks while graciously backing down to avoid confrontation.

And when you’re saying that the enemy spent two generations getting where they are now you’re right, but when you suggest that we need to be accepting of the same limitation when it comes to taking our nation back, you’re wrong. Not in the sense that it’s going to take time, because it is, it’s going to take a lot of time to reverse the damage that’s been done, but in the sense that we have that time.

Because we don’t.

The Prozis had two generations against an enemy that was tolerant and reluctant to grind the heel of a boot into the face of opposition because we, their enemy, believe in liberty.

They have no such limitations, and you know that more than most, having lived under socialism.

They’re not going to quietly sit back while we spend the next 10, 20 or 30 years taking back the schools, media and entertainment industry the way we did, and curse us for doing so. You know that. Again, more than most, because you’ve seen it before. I have too, but you’ve seen it more. And my readers Natasha and Nicki could school us both on that subject.

They will have Enabling Acts, re-education camps, political imprisonment and all the rest up and running in no time at all and, being leftists, they have no conscience, human thoughts or decency at all. I know that, because I’m a carefully trained leftist myself. And then you can take your long view and… well, you know.

If we’re to entertain even a remote hope of fighting back here, we’ve got to make the enemy know that we mean business. Then we’ve got to make them fear us, even more than they do already. Not necessarily by violence, we hope and pray that it will never come to that, but by letting them know that it’s on the table.

You know this. Your heart is in the right place and, coming from the same continent that I do, you harbor no illusions about the benevolism of Prozis. You’ve seen it all.

You can’t fight a mortal enemy as if he operates according to your own moral principles, because he doesn’t.

I would love for us to have another 20 years to turn the boat around, and I agree wholeheartedly with you in saying that we shouldn’t stop pushing it, but we don’t have twenty years.

11

Leave a Reply

When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.

DisagreeAgree

11Comment threads

0Thread replies

0Followers

Most reacted comment

Hottest comment thread

7Comment authors

Recent comment authors

Connect with

I allow to create an account

When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.

DisagreeAgree

Subscribe

newestoldestmost voted

Notify of

LC Xystus

“it’s hard making predictions, especially about the future.” One encouraging word from SH paralleled something I heard on talk radio Monday: And as for the Dems, the truly malignant ones are OLD. Princess cheekbones is their “young” hope. They can’t dip into the younger generations, because those are fracking crazy identity warriors or very, very dumb. 20-some Republican actual or… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down

March 10, 2015 03:34

The Soviet Union didn’t not turn the Cold War into a Hot one because we meekly accepted inevitability, nor were our sworn oaths to go down fighting no matter the outcome particularly “bright” in the “long view” (we’d all be dead, after all, and well we knew it). They didn’t because they knew that in the end we’d make them… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down

March 10, 2015 05:29

LC Xealot

Not only this, Misha, but there is no place for us to go otherwise. You and Sarah came here to get away from the progressive tide elsewhere. My father in law is an exile from Communist Cuba. My grandfather escaped the Armenian genocide in Turkey as a child. America has become the last refuge for the free, the final gathering… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down

March 10, 2015 12:09

LC SecondMouse

The unfortunate reality is that none of this conversation matters. The bureaucratic apparatus of the United States has grown beyond the capacity of the legislative or judicial branches ability to control it, and more than 9 out of every 10 members of its management are loyal Democrats. Taken in tandem with the corporations that have developed deeply ingrained capacities to… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down

March 10, 2015 17:42

LC Xystus

5. Our military, or some major faction of it, seizes power on behalf of the Constitution. Assuming they’re sincere–& have the guts to put aside the administration & Congress if necessary–this could be the fastest way out of our current mess. If they have a plan to restore a legitimate federal government afterwards, so much the better!

Vote Up0Vote Down

March 10, 2015 18:03

LC Roguetek

“Let it burn” That’s cute. It implies that it’s not already on fire and burning out of control. Even if Every. Single. Person, American or not, living within our borders stopped and did nothing but try to put the fire out, We would fail. We’ve spent too much. How many trillions, with a T in hard debt do we have?… Read more »

LC Xealot says: Revolution. Forget the media and their influence. Revolution can succeed, but not in the manner of 1776. Read this book, Victoria (it is free), if you want to see what a successful Second American Revolution could look like. Hint: It’s still horrifying, but a lot less violent than you might otherwise think. In modern warfare, the moral… Read more »